The city of Chula Vista is refusing to release the names of people who applied to operate marijuana businesses in the county’s second-largest city, a decision that has drawn criticism from at least one member of the City Council.

In January, Chula Vista received 124 applications from entrepreneurs who want to open dispensaries, delivery businesses, or cultivation, manufacturing, distribution and testing facilities.

Those applications contain the applicants’ names. The dispensary and delivery business license applications identify which City Council district they plan to open their business in.

Chula Vista’s spokesperson Anne Steinberger, after consulting with the City Attorney’s office, declined to release copies of the applications to The San Diego Union-Tribune, according to an email sent Jan. 25 in response to a public records request filed Jan. 22.

But Councilman John McCann said the process should be more transparent.

“The city is moving from an illegal market to a regulated market concerning a psychoactive mind altering recreational drug,” he said in a statement. “The process should be fully transparent in making sure we get the most ethical and qualified owners that provide the highest degree of safety for our communities, so all the applicant names should be available to the public for scrutiny.”

The city’s response to the newspaper’s records request states that the applications are not public records. Chula Vista listed three exemptions to public record laws:

“At this time, the City will not disclose cannabis applicant information pursuant to Government Code sections 6254 (f), ‘License Investigations,’ and 6255, ‘Deliberative Process,’ and Evidence Code section 1040, ‘Official Information.’ The City intends to provide applicant information following the ranking process.”

When asked when the ranking process would be completed, Steinberger said she did not know, partly because that is being done by a third party.

Thursday afternoon, City Attorney Glenn Googins clarified that the names of the applicants are being withheld from the public because of technical issues the city had processing the applications.

“We are continuing to sort through those issues and as soon as we have that clarified we will be able to provide you with the names of the applicants,” he said.

Googins added that he will meet with his office Friday to determine what specific information from the applications will be made public.

Experts at the First Amendment Coalition, a nonprofit dedicated to more open and accountable governments, do not believe Chula Vista’s use of the “License Investigations” exemption applies to the marijuana business license applications.

That exemption is commonly used by licensing agencies who are investigating wrongdoing, said David Snyder, the executive director of the First Amendment Coalition.

An example of this is law enforcement agencies not wanting to release records about a case for fear of disclosing the identity of a confidential informant.

“This exemption is to keep confidential law enforcement-type investigations or investigations by licensing agencies that go to some issue of violation of a rule or statute,” Snyder said. “The mere process of granting applications I don’t think qualifies as an investigative record.”

Even if Chula Vista believes the application’s review process requires some sort of investigation, only specific portions of the application should be withheld from the public, Snyder said.

“So it there were legitimate concerns about proprietary information or maybe some security concerns, the city can handle those concerns by redacting certain information that can be withheld, but just the identity of someone who submitted an application, I don’t see how that can be validly withheld from the public,” he added.

Speaking about the technical issues, Councilwoman Jill Galvez said the city received so many applications that the system crashed several times. The city set a size limit on the files and many applications included pictures and maps.

“Quite frankly, the volume crashed the system,” Galvez said.

Because of the crash, it is possible that applicants sent the same file more than once or sent partial files. This makes it difficult for the city to have a precise count at this point, Galvez added.

Chula Vista’s denial of the newspaper’s records request makes no reference to this technical problem and Steinberger never mentioned it during almost two weeks of email correspondence with the Union-Tribune.

Galvez said information on the applications will be made public as soon as the crash issue is resolved.

“I agree that transparency is our goal,” she said. “The city should provide data that is not proprietary as soon as possible, when the above-mentioned issue is resolved.”

Cities around San Diego County have taken different approaches to regulating the marijuana industry.

Phase one applications must have financial information to ensure applicants have the $250,000 liquid assets requirement, background checks for owners and managers, basic business plans including the type of marijuana business they plan to open, biographical information to fulfill experience requirements, and a general location that identifies which council district they plan to open the business in.

Applications that meet the minimum requirements will be ranked based on their qualifications, liquid assets, business plan and operating plan. Applicants with the highest scores move on to the second phase.

During the second phase, applicants identify specific locations. They also present site plans, emergency action plans, security plans, and more detailed operational plans.

Councilman Mike Diaz said he supported the city’s decision to withhold the names.

“We need to make sure the process is fair and I think staff is doing that,” he said. “My job is to provide policy and we did that. Now it’s staff’s turn to execute the policy.”